Remember, our developers have acess to our councillors and officers whenever they wish. The meetings are our only opportunity to put our side of our stories:
Agenda here
EDDC’s Executive Board has already voted for the curtailment of the rights of the public to speak at its meeting but it needs the rubber stamp of the full Council which will meet on 23 July 2014. Details HERE
This could affect many councils all over the country including Devon:
We are writing on behalf of the East Devon Alliance, a non-party-political campaigning group concerned with matters of planning and related transparency of government in our district. Our membership is drawn from across East Devon and our Charter and purpose are stated clearly on our website, which may be found at http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.
The key issues of Planning and Transparent Government intersect most significantly at the monthly meetings of EDDC’s Development Management Committee (DMC). Planning applications may come before this body of councillors, rather than being determined on the delegated decision of a Planning Officer, and that is right and proper. Particularly in cases where applications may be for development in a sensitive location and/or involving large scale destruction of open countryside.
Applications which come before the DMC will have an appropriate recommendation from the experts in EDDC’s planning office, i.e. to approve (with or without conditions) or to refuse. On a number of occasions, however, public contributions on the day have contributed to open debate to the extent that officer recommendations have been overturned. That is not to say that the recommendations were flawed in the first instance. Rather it is the sign of a healthy democracy that the public voice may be heard, and may inform intelligently the outcomes of what are, in many cases, both contentious and large-scale proposed development. The cost of such democracy in action is small: hitherto members of the public have been allowed but three minutes in which to present their views on the day.
The East Devon Alliance has watched with increasing concern as even that small price to pay, an allocation of 180 seconds (always carefully timed!) in which a member of public may express an opinion, is now threatened. The desire to strip the public of the right to speak on specific planning proposals or planning policy has worked its way through various EDDC sub-committees, and will finally reach a full meeting of Council for a decision on July 23rd.
We respectfully request that all councillors, of whatever political persuasion, consider deeply the principle and issues at stake. We propose accordingly not the introduction of new or complicated practices as far as public speaking is concerned, but the entirely reasonable practice of simply leaving public speaking arrangements as they are. This seems to us a not unreasonable request that would do much to restore public trust and confidence in a Council which, for many, has much to prove; not least in respect of its inability to deliver on time a Local Plan.
Yours faithfully
P Arnott and J Withrington
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, East Devon Alliance
No apologies for publishing this again:
Wednesday 23rd July 2014
EDDC full Council to vote on curtailment of public right to speak at EDDC meetings –
EDDC’s Executive Board has already voted for the curtailment of the rights of the public to speak at its meeting but it needs the rubber stamp of the full Council which will meet on 23 July 2014.
It is not too late to get this decision reversed. Write to your local councillor asking how he or she is planning to vote and why, and turn up on the day to show your support in preventing the erosion of democracy in East Devon.
(Contact details for your local Councillor can be found here, Wards and Councillors. Simply scroll down the list to find the Councillor for your ward and click on the orange highlighted name to bring up the details.)
A motion challenging what the Independent Councillors see as a clampdown on free speech, is proposed by Cllr Claire Wright and seconded by Cllr Ben Ingham. Cllrs Roger Giles, Trevor Cope and Susie Bond have also signed up to it. Below is an extract from Cllr Wright’s blog on the issue: “The motion will be debated at the full council meeting of Wednesday 23 July, which starts at 6.30 pm. It reads: “This council believes wholeheartedly in democracy and the fundamental right of its citizens to be fully represented by their elected members. This council also believes in the democratic process and commits to do everything within its power to enhance the role of the elected member.””
EDDC has recently sought to place a number of restrictions on the freedom of speech including: – 1) Recommendations to dramatically reduce public speaking at planning committee meetings. (Also to be decided on the 23rd). 2) Restrictions on public speaking at all committees. 3) An agreement that, “any motion not immediately relevant to the business of the council will be referred to a council committee first.”
Whilst everyone agrees the meetings can be long, especially when issues of public local concern are being discussed, if these restrictions are passed they will betray the key principles of Localism, designed to improve and encourage local authority engagement with the community. If EDDC wants to make meetings more time efficient, they should instead refrain from self-congratulation, nor raise issues of national policy over which they have no control; e.g. the recent half hour presentation and subsequent debate on the evils of illegal highs.
We very much hope you will take the time to contact your EDDC Councillor and urge them to vote against this reduction in the level of transparency, accountability and democracy at East Devon District Council. We also hope you will be able to show your support for those objecting by attending the meeting at the Knowle in Sidmouth on Wednesday, 23rd July from 6.30 pm.
Please feel free to pass this invitation onto your family, friends and neighbours, since this vote directly affects the right to be heard of everyone living in the East Devon area.
I look forward to seeing you there!
Nicky King
(Hon) Secretary
East Devon Alliance
Website – http://eastdevonalliance.org/
FaceBook – https://www.facebook.com/eastdevonalliance
Twitter – https://twitter.com/EDevonAlliance
Commenting on the front page story in the Daily Telegraph last year, new Planning and Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, MP said:
Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:
“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.
“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.
“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councillors-interests-and-planning
Perhaps we should now all write to him updating him on the progress our council has made on investigating disgraced ex-Councillor Brown’s chairmanship of the EDDC Local Plan working group at the same time as chairing the group of local developers, the East Devon Business Forum. Progress:none as EDDC CEO Mark Williams has refused to allow the EDDC Task and Finish group on this subject to meet.
“Brandon is a qualified barrister and a company director. Before joining the government, Brandon was an active member of a number of All Party Parliamentary Groups, including those for enterprise zones and local growth as well as local government. He was co-chair of a group on coastal erosion and continues to work with colleagues who represent other coastal towns to highlight common issues in their constituencies.
Brandon served on Brentwood Borough Council for more than 10 years, with 5 as Leader.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/brandon-lewis
From the theyworkforyouwebsite:
How Brandon Lewis has:
Voted very strongly for greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections
Voted moderately for more EU integration
Voted very strongly for encouraging occupational pensions
Voted very strongly for an equal number of electors per parliamentary constituency
Voted strongly for increasing the rate of VAT
Voted very strongly for university tuition fees
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24879/brandon_lewis/great_yarmouth/
AND
he was voted the worst MP in Twitter:
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/07/18/the-worst-mps-on-twitter-one-brandon-lewis
This included the information that MPs should have asked for below. You may wish to ask your MP to show you what they did BEFORE we brought this matter to public attention on 30 June 2014:
The advice:
….. “If you haven’t done so already, getting in touch with your local Electoral Registration Officer could be a useful step towards supporting registration activity and finding out more about any targeted work happening within your constituency. You may want to ask your Electoral Registration Officer(s) about their engagement strategy and implementation plan.
What the picture is for your area
The results of the confirmation exercise, once available, will show how many entries were green (i.e. they matched with the details on the DWP database), how many were amber (i.e. they were a partial match) and how many were red (i.e. there was no match). What were the match rates for:
all electors?
attainers?
postal voters?
Which groups of people/which wards have lower match rates and therefore pose the greatest challenge? How has that picture changed since the dry run of the confirmation data matching process?
How many existing postal voters have failed to match and are therefore at risk of losing their absent vote?
How are you using local records, including to boost match rates and confirm people onto the new register, and to identify and target new electors?
How activity is being targeted
Can you talk me through your public engagement strategy and implementation plan?
What are the key stages of the work you are doing between now and 1 December 2015 (in England and Wales)/2 March 2015 (in Scotland) to engage with existing and new electors, and when are they taking place (including, for example, when the write-out will begin; when you will be sending reminders and visiting individuals/households?)
How do you plan to target attainers to maximise the number of eligible 16 and 17 year olds included on the electoral register?
Do you have sufficient resources to deliver your plans effectively?
How can I support your work using my local intelligence and links into the community?
How can I stay updated on registration activity in my area?”
Rather depends on where they build them and how much they cost: affordable or luxury?
Just before the debate on the curtailment of public speaking next week and EDDC’s secrecy over its planned move to Skypark, it is timely to remind readers (again) of EDDC Leader Paul Diviani’s pledge when he took office in May 2011:
Turning to his own vision for the future and his style of leadership, Councillor Diviani said: “Some call it safe, clean and green – to which I would add seen.
“Safe comes through good design at the planning stage, through working with the police, fire and rescue and all the other services that deal with our society’s well-being, with particular emphasis on the vulnerable of whatever age.
“Clean is the public realm – paths and pavements on which we travel, the quality of our parks and pleasure grounds, efficient and convenient services, such as waste recycling and collection.
“Green will come as no surprise! Two-thirds of our district is nationally designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which makes East Devon such a fabulous place to live, work and play.
“Seen is about perception and reality and is all about effective communication. All too often we read that EDDC doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, sits in an ivory tower – the list goes on. The cynical view of the last government – decide, consult, do it all anyway – is not my approach.”
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/yarty_councillor_is_new_leader_at_east_devon_1_904941
Here is the proof that the Electoral Commission wrote to those MPs whose constituencies did not carry out the required house to house canvassing for the electoral register in 2013. We know from this document that only 6% of councils failed to do this and not only was EDDC one of these councils but it had also not performed these enquiries in 2011 and 2012.
Extract:
“The reasons given by each ERO for not carrying out house-to-house enquiries with all non-responding households are provided within the Commission’s report. The Commission has written specifically to those hon. Members whose ERO(s) have failed to meet the standard and it will soon write to all hon. Members to update them regarding the progress of the transition to IER. This update will include suggested questions which hon. Members may wish to put to their local EROs regarding what practices they follow, and propose to follow in future, in order to keep their electoral registers as complete and accurate as possible.”
Source:
Click to access 6.SPEAKERS-Committee-Electroal-Commission.pdf
A correspondent has sent an extract from a letter from an MP (Chris Ruane, a member of Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, see post below of 7 July 2014) after he contacted him on the subject of EDDC’s missing 6,000 voters. It makes interesting reading:
“Thank you very much for your e-mail, and your very thorough research.
The example of East Devon is one that I highlight in my work, and also includes West Devon and Mid Devon. On the ERO’s attachment, I have listed all the ERO’s who have failed the compulsory Performance Standard Three to conduct door to door visits, as you mentioned, and you will see that East Devon has failed it three times. …
… On the issue of registration, with the changes to Individual Electoral Registration now in force, keeping tabs on the ERO is more crucial. Last year, every local authority did a test run (confirmation dry run) of comparing their electoral register with the Department for Work and Pensions database. Because to register to vote under IER, you need a National Insurance number, those on the register now have to be checked that they are exactly who they are. So the DWP matching was a way to do this. Local authorities were also advised to do a similar match with databases they have (such as council tax records). Only a quarter did this in the dry run. I have attached the list of those who did to this local data matching, and East Devon is not on there. This was their opportunity to test the system before it went live, as it has done now.
On the issue of an FOI request, this may seem odd, but the ERO does not fall under FOI legislation. I found this out whilst doing my own research, and those ERO’s I knew who weren’t complying, responded to say that they didn’t have to answer. I have raised this with the committee. If you get the same response, please do let me know [the correspondent has confirmed that he did get the same response from EDDC].
Recently I asked a question at Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions, and Greg Clark is now looking into those councils who fail in their duties.
Please let me know how you get on with East Devon.”
An attachment provided by Mr Ruane shows that East Devon has not undertaken the required doorstep canvassing since 2011, and that East Devon did not take part in the very important IT systems dry run for the Individual Electoral Registration process.
“…Over the next 20 years, Skypark is predicted to create up to 6,500 new jobs as part of the wider Exeter and East Devon New Growth Point initiative.”
With only 147 jobs planned for the 24 hour parcel depot and with EDDC having about 500 employees and a few more at the 24 hour a day heating centre and the 24 hour a day ambulance call centre that leaves maybe another 5,000 people to be fitted on the site.
Enjoy Knowle and its parkland while you can EDDC staff!
As can be seen in other postings, EDDC’s representative is due to appear at Exeter Magistrate’s Court at 10 am on Thursday 28 August as the council has refused to make public information about its relocation even though the Information Commissioner has said that they should do so. It has been decided that this will be decided by a “First Tier Tribunal”. Here is the official explanation of what that means:
Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies which decide disputes in particular areas of law.
“Appeals to tribunals are generally against a decision made by a Government department or agency. The exception to this is the Employment Tribunal where cases are on a party v party basis (i.e. employee versus employer).
There are tribunals in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland covering a wide range of areas affecting day-to-day life. HM Courts & Tribunals administers many of them although some are the responsibility of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Appeals to the First-tier Tribunal are against the decisions from government departments and other public bodies. The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal on points of law i.e. an appeal made over the interpretation of a legal principle or statute. Further appeals may be made, with permission, to the Court of Appeal.
Tribunal judges are legally-qualified. Tribunal members are specialist non-legal members of the panel and include doctors, chartered surveyors, ex-service personnel or accountants. Tribunals often sit as a panel comprising a judge and non-legal members however in some jurisdictions cases may be heard by a judge or member sitting alone.
Tribunals adopt procedures that are less complicated and more informal than those typically associated with the courts.”
As EDDC’s majority party is known for toeing the national party line, when can we expect a pre-election reshuffle that gives us a younger cabinet with more women?
“A resident’s bid to make the district council disclose confidential details of its plans to leave Sidmouth has resulted in the authority having to argue its case at a tribunal in court.
Jeremy Woodward lodged a Freedom of Information request in November 2012 asking for the minutes of various relocation working parties to be made available to the public.
He also asked that full, unredacted reports from the project manager be released, but both requests were denied by council officials.
The Temple Street resident took the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which accepted the council’s decision to withhold the minutes.
However, it did not agree that the project manager’s reports were covered by the same exception under the Environmental Information Regulations.
The council was told to publish the reports, but has appealed against this decision. As a result, the matter has been referred for an oral hearing by the First Tier Tribunal at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, August 28.
Mr Woodward welcomed the news.
A council spokesman said it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter with the hearing pending.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/court_to_hear_knowle_case_1_3680513
Developers want to build more than 300 houses on the outskirts of Honiton along the country lanes between Honiton and Gittisham. This planning application has gone like a ping-pong ball at DMC meetings.
See here for a summary of the latest omnishambles:
https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/decision-deferred-on-land-west-of-hayne-lane-gittisham/
So many, many questions!
Why was the warning of Councillor Claire Wright (which predicted exactly these problems in November 2013) not heeded? Surely not because she does not belong to the majority party because, of course, as we all know, planning is not a party issue:
Why was this originally recommended for approval when even the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government has said it is so controversial it will need to go to him for determination?
Why, given that so many of our councillors have “two hats” and serve on local AONBs (and boast about it) did they not object earlier?
Why did officers not take into account the effect of this development on health service education and local infrastructure?
The Chief Executive NOW says:
“Further consideration and discussion needs to take place. As a result I would like to recommend that Members defer this application to enable this further work to be carried out. The matter to then be reported back to the committee at a future date when all of the necessary information and professional advice can be made available to Members in the officer’s report so that a fully informed decision can be made.”
so what has changed since this development was recommended for approval?
Who ARE Welbeck Strategic Land LLP – they seem to have appeared all over the country with their reductive compass and square logo, shoving in similar speculative applications just about everywhere? Why is its original planning application form so devoid of information (no information about the types of houses, parking, no waste storage or collection information, etc.? If people can put a planning application in with so little information how can a DMC make a decision about it?
Exeter Science Park romps ahead leaving Skypark as its poor relation.
Can we hope for a better replacement? PLEASE!
Nick Boles (moved)
Nick Boles has been appointed as minister of state at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education. David Cameron said part of his brief will be equal marriage implementation.
There is an ongoing scandal in Carmarthenshire, where the question of unlawful payments to the Chief Executive of Carmarthen Council became a national scandal. For the background on this see:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-launch-investigation-unlawful-payments-6701913
As a result it was decided that there would be a police investigation. However, it was decided that because council and police in the area had many joint undertakings, the investigation would be undertaken by an outside force. Gloucestershire and Avon police were chosen to do this investigation:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gloucestershire-police-to-investigate.html
After three months, the police called off the investigation saying there was no case to answer:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/police-call-off-investigation.html
However, a local blogger was not satisfied with this and asked the police how they had come to this conclusion:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/unlawful-payments-police-foi-response.html
Here is what she says:
Following the conclusion of the police investigation I made a freedom of Information request to Gloucestershire police. The response came today and there is a link at the end of this post.
I asked for;
1. A list of any persons interviewed, and /or job titles, and whether any of these were
interviewed under caution
2. Correspondence between Gloucestershire Constabulary and Carmarthenshire County
Council
3. Whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service were involved and if so, any relevant correspondence.
The responses were that;
….nobody was interviewed,
….there was no correspondence between the council and the police and
….the CPS weren’t involved.
This was, you recall, a three month long criminal investigation….
I also asked for;
4. The final report following the conclusion of the investigation
5. A list, or summary, of all documents in either paper or electronic form which formed part
of the investigation.
These were refused under the Section 30 exemption in that the release of this information may jeopardise police tactics in the future…presumably they’re expecting a flurry of similar local authority unlawfulness.
A thorough investigation? We’ll have to take their word for it. I remain of the view that in both instances there was, amongst other matters, the deliberate prevention of proper scrutiny as documented in the two Wales Audit Office reports.The full FOI response can be read here.
I am now considering whether to request an internal review of their response.
East Devon Watch 